2. Judgment of the first instance; and

A. On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) under which the Plaintiff would pay KRW 375 million and take over the business of the instant maintenance business establishment by paying KRW 375 million in the name of “D industry company” (hereinafter “instant maintenance business establishment”) in Guro-gu Seoul, and paid KRW 37.5 million to the Defendant on the same day.

B. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition of a motor vehicle management business (motor vehicle maintenance business) with respect to the instant maintenance business establishment to Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, and has been operating the instant maintenance business until now.

C. The instant maintenance business establishment leased and used the entire 49.92 square meters of the first floor neighborhood living facilities (office) among the five-story buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant site”) 76.41 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”).

The survey of this case outside the office of this case is installed on the part of the site of this case and on the part of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Road (hereinafter “the road of this case”), such as the part “A” in the attached Form No. 1.

On the other hand, the road of this case was designated as an aesthetic district around June 10, 1974.

On May 17, 2018, the head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government imposed KRW 721,840 on the owner F of the instant office on charges for compelling the performance on the ground that the instant premium was installed in the set-off line after the construction line of the instant road designated as an aesthetic district (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the Guro-gu Office respondeded to the purport that there is no ground to regulate the instant premium as of the date of abolition of the fine view under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 7, and Eul evidence 1 and 2.